Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Committee Reports

“Exploring New Frontiers in Ecological Resources: Integration, Delivery, and Partnerships” WESTERN REGIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY CONFERENCE Telluride, Colorado July 7-12, 2002 Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Committee Reports CONTENTS Meeting Agenda………………………………………………………… Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey…………………………… Standing Committee on New Technology Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey…………………………… Conference Committee on Research Needs Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey…………………………… 11 Standing Committee for Standards Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey…………………………… 16 Conference Committee on Partnering Opportunities Report and Recommendations of the Soil Crust Task Force………… 18 Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference 2002 “Exploring New Frontiers in Ecological Resources; Integration, Delivery, and Partnerships” July 7-12, 2002 Big Billie Conference Room, Wyndham Peaks Resort, Telluride, Colorado Sunday July 7, 2002 7:30am12:30pm 2:00pm-4:00 pm Geomorphic Tour-San Juan Mountains Registration Monday July 8, 2002 Rob Blair, Ft Lewis College Foyer, Big Billie Room Moderator: Tim Sullivan 7:00am9:00am 9:00am9:15am 9:15-9:30am Agency Reports 9:30am9:45am 9:45am10:00am 10:00am10:30am 10:30am10:45am 10:45am11:00am 11:00am11:15am Registration Foyer, Big Billie Room Introductory Remarks Bill Ypsilantis, BLM Welcome Ann Morgan, BLM Colorado State Director Agricultural Experiment Station Bob Graham, University of California, Riverside Bob Hetzler, BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BREAK Bureau of Land Management Bill Ypsilantis, BLM National Park Service Pete Biggam, NPS Natural Resources Conservation Service Berman Hudson, NRCS 11:15am11:30am 11:30am1:00pm Cooperator Reports 1:00pm1:15pm 1:15pm1:30pm 1:30pm1:45pm 1:45pm2:15pm 2:15pm2:45pm 2:45pm3:15pm 3:15pm3:45pm 3:45pm4:15pm 4:15pm4:45pm 5:00pm Forest Service Randy Davis, FS LUNCH Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts National Society of Consulting Soil Scientists Tribal Liaison Update Bob Zebroski, CASCD Geology of the San Juan Mountains BREAK Rob Blair, Ft Lewis College Shoshone NF Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory Update of Ecological Site Descriptions Soil Quality Indicators in Rangeland Soil Crust Taskforce Report Kent Houston, FS Evening Reception/No Host Bar Tuesday July 9, 2002 Barry Dutton, Land and Water Inc Marcy Arrowchis, NRCS Curtis Talbot, NRCS Arlene Tugel, NRCS Janice Boettinger, Utah State University Legends Room Moderator: Cameron Loerch 8:00am8:30am 8:30am9:00am 9:00am9:30am 9:30am10:00am 10:00am10:30am 10:30am11:00am 11:00am11:30am 11:30am1:00pm 1:00pm3:00pm Soil Data Warehouse Ken Harward, NRCS Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory - Geospatial Toolkit Demonstration of TERRA/NRIS Haans Fisk, FS Development of GIS-based Soil Mapping Techniques in the Pacific Northwest BREAK Alan Busacca, Washington State University Interagency Applications of the Soil Data Viewer Role of Biological Soil Crusts in Rangeland Health LUNCH Ken Harward, NRCS Committee Breakout Sessions Group Mike McArthur, FS Jayne Belnap, USGS 3:00pm3:30pm 3:30pm3:45pm 3:45pm5:00pm BREAK Soils Field Tour Orientation Bill Ypsilantis, BLM Poster Session/Demo’s Big Billie Conference Room Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:00am4:30pm Soil Field Tour Thursday, July 11, 2002 Moderator: Craig Ditzler Committee Reports 8:00am8:20am 8:20am8:40am 8:40am9:00am 9:00am9:20am 9:20am9:30am 9:30am10:00am 10:00am10:45am 10:45am11:15am 11:15am11:30am 11:30am1:00pm 1:00pm1:30pm 1:30pm2:15pm 2:15pm- New Technology Committee Report Research Needs Committee Report Soil Survey Standards Committee Report Opportunities/Cooperative Agreements Committee Report Group Discussion of Committee Reports BREAK Pete Biggam, NPS Colorado River Salinity/Selenium Issues Win Wright, USGS Karla Brown, Colorado State University Mike Pellant, BLM Rangeland Restoration Initiatives and Issues National Soil Survey and Rangeland Ecosystem Classification Strategy Luncheon, Alpenglow Room Gene Kelley, Colorado State University Duane Lammers, FS Cameron Loerch, NRCS Bill Ypsilantis, BLM Guest Speaker-Marilyn Colyer, Mesa Verde National Park Dewayne Mays, NRCS National Soil Survey Laboratory Update Soil Survey: Becoming Relevant in David Hammer, a Changing World University of Missouri Tephra Workshop Overview Duane Lammers, FS 2:45pm 2:45pm3:00pm 3:00pm4:00pm 4:00pm4:30pm 4:30pm5:00pm BREAK Agency Breakout Sessions Group West Regional NCSS Business Meeting Meeting Wrap-up and Friday Field Tour Logistics Group Bill Ypsilantis, BLM Pete Biggam, NPS Friday, July 12, 2002 7:30am5:00pm Field Tour-Mesa Verde National Park Pete Biggam, NPS Doug Ramsey, NPS Arlene Tugel, NRCS Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Standing Committee on New Technology Report to the Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Telluride, Colorado July 8­12, 2002 Pete Biggam, Chair, NPS, Lakewood, CO  Bill Ypsilantis, Vice­Chair,  BLM, Lakewood, CO Committee Members In Attendance Janis Boetting er, Utah State Universit y Alan Busacca, Washingt on State Universit y Ed Bulloch, BIA Jan Cipra, Colorado State Universit y Hayes Dye, NRCS Haans Fisk, FS Chuck Gordon, NRCS Charles Hibner, NRCS David Hoover, NRCS Janelle Jersey, BIA Earl Lockridg e, NRCS Tommie Parham, NRCS Alan Price, NRCS Doug Ramsey, NRCS Tom Reedy, NRCS Ken Scheffe, NRCS Peter Scull, UC Santa Barbara Dave Smith, NRCS Background This is a new Committee for the Western Region Cooperative Soil Survey, however, at the national level, there is a Standing Committee on New Technology currently active This is the first time that this Committee has met, so it has no previous charges to react to, other than that of the “national charge” in regards to New Technology Initial Charges of West Region Standing Committee on New Technology  “To develop and document procedures, processes, and standards that will be used to integrate GIS, remote sensing, landscape modeling, and other similar technologies into the mainstream of the soil mapping and landscape inventory program” Activities Determined what/how issues regarding New Technologies can be adopted or included in the Western Region a) Reviewed the 2001 report of the NCSS New Technology Standing Committee and determined which recommendations we might implement in the Western Region b) Also identified “new charges” which the group felt were needed to pursue for the initial stages of this committee’s development 2. Approved “New Charges” for the Committee to Pursue  a) Develop interest­oriented work groups charged with identifying new technologies that  can be used to facilitate soil resource inventory, interpretation, information delivery,  and agency implementation strategies (Potential for 4 work groups)  b) Each interest­oriented work group will also be tasked with identifying specific needs in soil resource inventory, interpretation, information delivery, and agency  implementation strategies.  c) Compile, regularly update, and communicate to committee members a list of conferences, training sessions, workshops, etc on development and implementation of emerging new technology d) Develop and implement methods for interagency technology transfer in NCSS and report to the National Standing New Technologies Committee e) Charge all task forces/work groups in recruiting members, specifying objectives, and developing realistic time lines for meeting objectives f) Evaluate progress of work groups and redefine charges as needed, at minimum of every two years at WRCSS conferences g) Committee Chair will recruit/appoint/solicit members from NCSS to participate in appropriate work groups as needed h) Committee Chair will develop a comprehensive report and provide a presentation at each Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Recommendations This committee needs to aggressively pursue the recommended “new charges” in a timely manner, to “strike while interests are still high” Communicate to the Standing Committee on New Technology with what the Western Region is pursuing, and coordinate with other Regional Cooperative Soil Surveys in regards to what they are doing regarding new technology 10    Destroyed what you were trying to look at Repeatability limited because of destruction from steps Hard to maintain a straight line around vegetation The tendency would be to walk around and avoid dense or thorny plants, thus biasing the results  Had to bend down and look at tiny crust features, didn’t look as closely as for other methods  Fast  Easy to get randomness and lots of points in areas with low vegetation cover Ocular estimate with quadrats (Method 2)  Need to get calibrated each field season before using with confidence FS uses a modification of this method now  Fast  Has training and calibration value Line-point quadrat (Method 3)  Rapid  Easy  Seems fairly accurate  Has value in teaching crust organisms and for calibration Stratified line-point intercept (Method 4)  Method is used in monitoring (part of NRI protocols)  Seemed less appropriate for determining morphological composition of biological crusts than quadrat methods in this ecsosystem  If one goes to trouble to set up line, take as much info as possible (i.e., rock fragment cover, etc.)  Once line is set up, fairly rapid  Need to emphasize that you have to get down and look closely at the organisms  Can obtain information on spatial patterns (i.e., crusts associated with canopy/no canopy or with plant species)  May be most appropriate for determining soil surface cover for typical pedons, not day to day mapping We then asked the question, which methods, if any, would you use in day-to-day soil mapping activities? Those task force members who work primarily in the field stated they would probably use an ocular estimate method, unless required to otherwise by superiors All recognized the importance of using a more reliable method But, they admitted that time was limited and there was already an abundance of data to collect in pedon and site descriptions In order to insure that inaccruate values of crust cover by morphological group were not made by ocular estimate, the group agreed to the need for a fifth method Ocular estimates (Method 5) of total biological crust cover will use four cover classes (0, 1-5, 6-25, >25%) and simply indicate the presence or absence of dark cyanobacteria, lichen, or moss The stratified line-point method was the preferred method for data collection at pedons and for ecological sites Because of workload considerations, some members of the Task Force suggested that ocular estimates of total biological crust cover be recorded in field notes and line-point transects be used to measure all surface cover features at typical pedons for initial surveys For update soil survey operations, use line-point transects of all soil surface cover features for all map units and their components and georeference and photograph the profile and surface features Because of ease of use and the variable nature of the distribution of crusts, some methods are better suited than others to specific situations Dr Belnap suggested that the line- 25 point method is best suited where there is >25% shrub or tall grass cover, OR where patches of biological crusts are widely scattered The quadrat/transect method (framepoint) is best suited to the Colorado Front range, bunchgrasses, OR where shrub cover is < 25% Soil descriptions A significant amount of our discussion focused on how best to accurately and efficiently describe biological crusts in the context of a pedon and site description Some argued in favor of describing the BSC as a horizon feature Others argued that BSC should be described solely as a surface feature Most acknowledged that it may be possible to describe BSCs as both surface and horizon features The task force broke into groups and each was charged with describing a soil that had a well developed, pinnacled biological crust The descriptions are in Appendix The first group treated the biological soil crust primarily as a horizon feature Because the BSC was very highly pinnacled, soil depth to hard bedrock was cm measuring from the valleys between pinnacles and13 cm measuring from pinnacle tops Therefore, they described the crust as an A horizon from to cm, ranging in thickness from to cm, and used the mid-point of the crust as the effective soil surface They noted “pinnacled” in the “accessory property” column of the soil description form (R3-FS-2500-6) They noted the average width of and distance between pinnacles, and the morphological groups of organisms present The second group also focused on the biological crust as a horizon, describing “pinnacled” vs “non-pinnacled” areas Measuring up from the lithic contact, they described two A horizons separated by a broken boundary The A1 was the pinnacle itself, which had a high concentration of biological crust material, and the A2 was the thin crust between pinnacle, with a high concentration on undifferentiated material (physical crust and light cyanobacteria crust) They suggested describing biological crusts similarly to ped and void surface features (page 2-24 of Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils) Filaments and sheaths of crust organisms would be described similarly to roots in the soil matrix The third group focused on the biological soil crusts as a soil surface feature They first identified the type as “pinnacled The measured the vertical (height of pinnacles) and horizontal (length and width) dimensions They suggested describing size classes, similar to classes of blocky or prismatic soil structure Cover by morphological group, average color for pinnacle and inter-pinnacle space, location on the soil surface, thickness of the “rind” (crust), and surface roughness could be described This group identified the soil surface (0 cm) at the valley (lowest part) between the pinnacles The last group acknowledged that there was merit in describing the biological crust as both a horizon and a soil surface feature Because some important information may be lost if the crust is lumped with underlying soil, a 1-cm crust was split out and the pinnacle height was included in the range of horizon thickness They suggested that the surface of the soil (0 cm) could possibly start at the base of the “rind” (crust), but most others did not agree The crust could be identified with a special suffix in the horizon designation (“u” for crust, for example) Soil surface spatial features should also be described; a table for all types of soil crusts is probably needed in NASIS Conclusions on cover methods and profile descriptions Following these independent group observations and the test of cover methods, the task force revisited the specifics of describing biological crusts in soil survey Everyone agreed that BSCs should be described as soil surface features There was general consensus that BSCs 26 should be included in surface cover characterization and that we should develop protocols for describing all types of soil crusts as well as all surface features:  Physical crusts  Chemical crusts (e.g., salt crusts)  Biological crusts  Biologic components at the surface, e.g., periphyton  Rock fragments  Plant bases  Bare soil and non-crusted soil  Litter Modifications to methods 1-4 and a new Method based on the recommendations of this test are in “Guidelines for describing soil surface features (ver 2.0).” The methods were modified to include all surface features important for soil surface resistance to erosion, raindrop interception, and runoff The attributes of crusts that the task force identified as important to measure were, at minimum: % cover by morphological group (moss, lichen, cyanobacteria – light vs dark) Surface roughness/Surface relief (organism neutral) Ideas on how to describe this included: o Shape, height, width, and length of units  Structural units? For example, establish three size classes for three structural unit shapes o Distance or area between units o total surface area/ total 2D area of observation Color may also be an important property to describe, however Dr Belnap considers it less important than cover, roughness and spatial distribution Lichens occur in many colors including black, brown, white, pink, yellow and green Old, stable lichen crusts commonly have a grater diversity of species and hence more colors than young crusts There was less agreement on whether to describe biological crusts as horizons and, if so, how However, there was some consensus that we needed more information, and the following recommendations were made:  Evaluate alternate approaches to describe crust morphology (vertical and horizontal) as a part of a soil description, e.g., A horizon or a surface feature;  Examine crusts in other areas of the country;  Explore options for sampling soil crusts for laboratory characterization  Consider use of “u” subscript to indicate the surface has some kind of crust Part III Research Needs, Action Items, Additional Charges Research Needs Continued research is needed to answer questions about the role and occurrence of crusts in various ecosystems This information will help with the interpretation of biological crust information and prediction of the effects of land use and disturbances on biological crusts Priority needs are: 1) Document occurrence of biological soil crusts in different ecosystems (Research and Inventory): 27  Document location and current condition of crusts (Inventory and Assessment);  Develop predictive model of potential crust distribution (Research) 2) Determine relative importance of biological soil crust function in different ecosystems 3) Develop models of resistance and resilience of biological soil crusts to disturbances at various levels:  Landscape (e.g., soil-landscape-vegetation transects);  Soil mapping unit – Soil surveys can provide info on resistance and resilience based on soil-biological crust relationships;  Ecological site 4) Biological soil crusts as indicators of ecological thresholds Action items Develop issue paper on accurately, consistently, and efficiently capturing biological soil crust information in soil descriptions, addressing the options of treating biological crusts as horizon vs surface features Who: Park and Ramsey Status: When: Dec 2002 Summarize methods available for measuring surface roughness and evaluate their potential for documenting biological soil crust morphology Who: Boettinger, Reedy, Parslow When: Dec 2002 Status: Develop written guidelines for the ocular method for estimating biological soil crust cover to be used for field notes Who: A Tugel, J Belnap When: July 2002 Status: Completed See Appendix Make revisions to the surface cover methods based on the field test in the Colorado Plateau Incorporate all surface features and guidelines for transect length and number of points per transect that are needed for soil components smaller than 50 meters across Who: A Tugel, J Belnap When: July 2002 Status: Completed See Appendix 3 Additional charges that need to be addressed Provide illustrations of how biological crust information can impact or improve resource assessment, land management and soil interpretations Review the draft manuscript “Biological Soil Crusts” for inclusion on the Soil Survey Manual Guidance on when and where to measure this dynamic soil property is needed Alternatives include an area that represents the site potential, a plant community likely to shift to a different state or a plant community in a “stable” functional state Selecting the site will require a well trained range conservationist and soil scientist working together 28 Part IV Resources for Additional Information The items below are readily available They contain information about biological soil crusts and their importance Belnap, J., J.H Kaltenecker, R Rosentreter, J Williams, S Leonard and D Eldridge 2001 Biological soil crusts: ecology and management TR-1730-2, USDI, BLM, Denver, CO Web site http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm Herrick, J.E., J.W Van Zee, K.M Havstad and W.G Whitford in prep Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range Island Press, Washington, D.C contact jherrick@nmsu.edu NRCS 1997 Introduction to microbiotic crusts USDA-NRCS, Soil Quality Institute and Grazing Lands Technology Institute, Ft Worth, TX Web site http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/ NRCS 2001 Rangeland Soil Quality Information Sheets - 10 titles including Soil Biota; Soil Crusts-Physical and Biological USDA-NRCS, Soil Quality Institute and Grazing Lands Technology Institute, USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, USDI Bureau of Land Management Web site http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/ Pellant, M et.al., 2000 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, ver Technical Reference 1734-6 USDI-BLM, Denver, CO Web site http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm Stringham, T.K., W.C Krueger, and P.L Shaver 2001 States, transitions, and thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland applications Ag Exp Sta Special Report 1024, Oregon State University (Order copies from: Dept of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, 202 Strand Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-2218), or download pdf at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/glti/pubs.html Websites BLM Soil Biological Communities http://www.blm.gov/nstc/soil/index.html BLM, USGS, USPS Biological Soil Crusts http://www.soilcrust.org/ NRCS-Soil Quality Institute Website Soil Biology Information Resources http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/SBinfo.htm Part V Appendices Appendix Agency needs Appendix Soil Survey Manual manuscript, draft, Belnap, Jayne and Arlene J Tugel 6-19-02 draft Biological Soil Crusts Appendix Methods and data sheets Belnap, Jayne, Arlene J Tugel and Jeffrey E Herrick 6-26-02 draft Guidelines for describing soil surface features (ver 2.0) and data sheets used in the Moab test Appendix Soil descriptions 29 Appendix Photos 30 Appendix Agency Needs BLM Where is crust a management consideration and where not? Must address biological soil crusts in NEPA documentation Need a simplified field guide such as a check list or flow chart of factors related to biological crusts that should be included in NEPA documentation Need a simplified field guide (with photos) for assessing crusts related to inventory and monitoring protocol Need information on how to minimize impacts to biological crusts Need training for the field personnel in federal agencies Need a database clearing house (NASIS?) for collected data and photo records Need a module in soil data viewer related to crusts The Ecological Site Description is a good tool to pull together soil and ecological resource information 10 We encourage other states to follow the BLM partnership model in New Mexico for Ecological Site development NPS See BLM, ditto for Park Service NPS must shift from managing visitors to managing resources Need to identify crusts in the soil survey program Would use biological crusts in information and education programs on ecological significance of crusts across landscapes Would use crust information in Park Service to help identify concepts of impairment of the resource Need a monitoring network Would use crust information in biological inventory, possibly as vital signs or indicators for ecosystem processes Would look at the State and Transition Models as a tool We encourage the use of Ecological Site Descriptions in monitoring and inventory 10 All federal agencies (e.g., BLM, NPS) should share model sites illustrating ecological condition FS, Reg Region is already documenting the occurrence of biological soil crusts using an ocular method in their Terrestrial Ecosystem Surveys Need to describe and record crusts in soil survey Need protocols to describe crusts Biological soil crusts must be included in NEPA documentation as more information is needed for appeals, etc The BLM Crust training course needs to be continued for all agencies Welcome distribution of USGS fact sheets on biological soil crusts to FS personnel USGS Need multi-agency support (money) for training and mapping Because of limited resources and knowledgeable personnel, need to “train the trainers” Appendix 31 Biological Soil Crusts For the Soil Survey Manual Jayne Belnap, USGS, Moab, UT and Arlene J Tugel, NRCS-SQI, Las Cruces, NM 3-26-02 (rev 6-28-02) Biological soil crusts are a living community of cyanobacteria, mosses and lichens that occur in most arid and semi-arid regions They are a part of, and can heavily influence, the morphology of the nearsurface zone of soils in these regions They affect local hydrologic patterns by either increasing or decreasing infiltration (depending on their morphology and site characteristics) and by retarding evaporation of soil moisture The polysaccharide material extruded by these organisms binds soil particles together, providing protection from raindrop-induced erosion and physical crusting and creating soil aggregates These soil aggregates provide sequestration sites for nutrients and carbon and activity sites for decomposition They also increase the water-holding capacity of the upper few millimeters to centimeters of the soil Biological soil crusts fix both carbon and nitrogen, making them an important source of soil nutrients Biological soil crusts occur in all regions where plant cover is sparse, especially semi-arid and arid regions Biological soil crusts also occur in temperate zones where soils are infertile (e.g., pine barrens) or where vegetation removal (e.g., treefall or agricultural activities such as herbicide treatment of orchard rows) has left soil exposed and available for crust colonization In our definition, biological soil crusts not include thick vegetative moss mats where most of the biomass is above-ground (e.g., spike moss; club moss mats in northern latitudes) Relationship to Mineral Crusts Non-biotic soil surface crusts, or physical crusts, are also a major structural feature in many arid regions Chemical crusts are dominated by macro- or microcrystalline evaporites Physical crusts are soilsurface layers generally formed by raindrop impact, disruption of soil aggregates followed by in-filling of pore spaces, deposition of sediments from short-range runoff, or puddling resulting from freeze-thaw processes on bare ground (no biological soil crust present) They range in thickness from less than one millimeter to a few centimeters The presence of a physical crust often aids biological soil crust establishment, as the physical crust provides a stable surface for colonization Like biotic crusts, physical crusts reduce soil loss via wind erosion However, because physical crusts often disperse when wet and biotic crusts not, biotic crusts are more effective at reducing soil loss from water erosion Welldeveloped biological crusts resist both wind and water erosion Biotic crusts also create stable soil aggregates, unlike physical crusts Types of Biological Soil Crusts There are main types of biological soil crusts (Belnap 2001), distinguished by the soil surface microtopography that they create (Figure 1) The microtopography is reflected in the height of the “peaks” and the width of the spaces between the “peaks” Smooth crusts and rugose crusts occur in hyper-arid and arid hot deserts where high air temperatures and low rainfall result in very high potential evaporation (PET) and soils never freeze In contrast, pinnacled crusts and rolling crusts occur in semi-arid cool and cold deserts, where soils freeze during cold winters and PET is lower than hot deserts These crust classifications are based on late successional stages of crusts; in frequently disturbed areas, smooth or rugose crusts can be seen in any geographic region Smooth crusts: Smooth crusts are dominated by cyanobacteria, and lack lichens and mosses Soil surfaces are mostly mineral particles They are extremely flat, as the binding action of cyanobacteria create an even smoother soil surface than bare ground Smooth crusts occur in hyperarid and arid regions, where precipitation is very low, temperatures are very high, and soils never freeze (e.g., central Sahara desert, Negev desert in Israel) There are few crusts of this type in the western US, except in areas where soils are frequently disturbed 32 Rugose crusts: Rugose crusts occur in arid and semi-arid regions where soils never or seldom freeze, but that have lower PET than areas with smooth crust Like smooth crusts, rugose crusts are dominated by cyanobacteria, but they also contain sparse patches of lichens and mosses growing on the more-or-less even soil surface This type of crust occurs in the Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Mojave deserts Rugose crusts can also occur as a successional stage in areas where soils are recovering from disturbance Pinnacled crusts: Pinnacled crusts occur in areas where soils freeze during winter They are dominated by cyanobacteria, but support up to 40% lichen and moss cover These crusts are characterized by strikingly pedicelled mounds that are formed as the frost-heaved soils are differentially eroded by downward-cutting water These castle-like mounds can be up to 10 cm high and have delicate tips that are less than mm across Lichens, mosses, small rocks, or concentrations of cyanobacteria often act as a cap for these tips, offering greater resistance to erosion than adjacent soil Pinnacled crusts occur in midlatitude cool deserts such as the Colorado Plateau and the southern Great Basin This crust type is the most vulnerable to soil surface disturbance, as the frost-heaved surface is easily broken and churned, often burying crustal organisms Rolling crusts: Rolling crusts occur in colder regions where soils freeze in winter and where PET is low (e.g., northern Great Basin, Columbia Plateau and the Arctic tundra) Rolling crusts are heavily dominated by lichens, mosses, and/or thick dark mats of cyanobacteria The upward frost-heaving of the soil is counteracted by the cohesive, thickly-encrusted mats of lichens, mosses, and surface roots of vascular plants; thus, rather than pinnacled surfaces, this combination creates a rough, rolling surface When disturbed, these types of crusts are sometimes easily detached from the soil surface, as they can adhere more to themselves than the soil This makes them vulnerable to soil surface disturbances Major Components of Soil Crusts: Cyanobacteria, Lichens, and Mosses Biological soil crusts include bacteria, microfungi, cyanobacteria, green algae, mosses, liverworts and lichens (Belnap et al 2001) Various characteristics that not require identification to the species level can be used to differentiate the three major components (broad morphological groups) of soil crusts in the field Cyanobacteria (“blue-green algae”) are primitive filamentous or single-celled bacteria that come in a variety of sizes and shapes These organisms fix both carbon and nitrogen Only the filamentous species can be seen without a microscope They look like fine threads that dangle and twirl when chunks of the soil surface are held aloft (unlike roots, which are often too stiff to blow as freely) These threads often have small soil particles attached Cyanobacterial crusts with low biomass and diversity are generally the color of the substrate (most often light) Cyanobacterial crusts with high biomass and diversity are dark (brown-black), due both to increased biomass and the production of UV-protective pigments by the organisms Lichens are fungi that capture and cultivate photosynthetic algae or cyanobacteria as partners There are two main types of lichens, gelatinous and non-gelatinous Gelatinous lichens are black, swell when moistened, and are capable of nitrogen fixation Non-gelatinous (crustose, squamulose, foliose, and fructicose) lichens come in all colors, not swell when moistened, and generally not fix nitrogen In deserts of the western US, soil lichens are generally a mixture of gelatinous, crustose and squamulose lichens Mosses are photosynthetic plants with small leaves that unfurl when moistened (thus the moss appears to swell) When dry, mosses are dark and dull-colored; when moistened, the color changes markedly to a bright, light green to brown This makes them easy to distinguish from lichens Morphological groups (Table 1) group organisms that are similar in shape, appearance, and function Minor and difficult-to-observe components can be included with the three major biological crust groups (cyanobacteria, lichen, moss) Green algae, single-celled photosynthetic organisms, are included with cyanobacteria because they are difficult to observe in the field without high magnification but sometimes give the moist soil surface a green tint Liverworts are minor in arid environments and can be included with lichen For special studies, such as monitoring the abundance of N-fixing lichens, specific morphological groups, or even species, can be measured 33 Table Morphological groups for biological crust components and their N-fixing characteristics (Belnap et al 2001) Broad morphological group Cyanobacteria Lichen Moss Morphological group Representative taxa N-fixing Green algal crusts Cyanobacterial crusts Crustose lichen Gelatinous lichen Squamulose lichen Foliose lichen Fruiticose lichen Liverworts Short moss (< 10mm) Tall moss (> 10mm) Coccoids Microcoleus vaginatus, Nostoc spp Fulgensia desertorum Collema coccophorum Psora decipiens Peltigera occidentalis Aspicilia hispida Riccia spp Bryum spp Tortula ruralis No Most species No Yes A few species No No No No No Soil Surface Roughness/Crust Age The roughness of the soil surface is important in runoff, the retention of water and litter, and can provide an indication of crust age For example, in Colorado Plateau and southern Great Basin pinnacled crusts, the height of the pinnacles relates to the number of frost-heaving events that have occurred once disturbance has ceased Thus, the age of pinnacled crusts can be estimated via soil surface roughness In an undisturbed crust, pinnacles “grow” about cm a year for about years, and so surface roughness is estimated in cm increments up to cm After reaching cm, the height of the pinnacle is determined by soil texture and the species composition of the biological crust The exception is areas where water pools; here, the crust micro-topography is often limited to cm or less Lichens and moss generally take at least 10 years to colonize; thus soils with lichen/moss cover have generally been undisturbed for at least this long For smooth, rugose, and rolling crusts, height cannot be used to age the soil crust The only visible indicator of development is lichen and moss cover These components recover more quickly on fine-textured soils and with increasing effective precipitation Therefore, before using lichen and moss cover as an indicator of soil crust age, these site-specific factors must be taken into account Distribution of Crusts The percent cover and the components of the crust can vary across short distances For example, the percent cover and abundance of morphological groups in interspaces can be quite different than those under shrub canopies Closed plant canopies or thick litter layers limit the development of crust organisms Where soil-disturbing activities are present, soil crusts are likely to be most developed in areas protected from trampling such as under shrubs, or adjacent to obstacles such as fallen trees and rocks (Rosentreter et al 2001) Recording information about the distribution of crusts in relation to the plant canopy species or type (herbaceous, shrub, tree, none) will aid in the interpretation of the function of biological crusts on the site References 34 Belnap, J 2001 Comparative structure of physical and biological soil crusts In: J Belnap and O.L Lange, eds Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management Ecological studies, v 150 SpringerVerlag, Berlin Belnap, J., J.H Kaltenecker, R Rosentreter, J Williams, S Leonard and D Eldridge 2001 Biological soil crusts: ecology and management TR-1730-2, USDI, BLM Denver, CO Rosentreter, R D.J Eldridge, and J.H Kaltencker 2001 Monitoring and management of biological crusts In: J Belnap and O.L Lange, eds Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management Ecological studies, v 150 Springer-Verlag, Berlin 35 Figure Biological soil crust types Flat crusts contain only cyanobacteria, and are not frost-heaved Rugose crusts are similar to flat crusts, except they contain occasional lichen/moss patches Pinnacled crusts are cyanobacterially-dominated, and can have up to 40 percent cover of lichen/moss Their distinctive characteristic is great surface roughness due to frost-heaving Rolling crusts are also frostheaved, but their high lichen/moss cover prevents the heightened surface roughness of pinnacled crusts; instead, they exhibit a rolling surface 36 Additional information: Not for inclusion in the Soil Survey Manual Rationale for measuring cover for morphological groups as well as total cover Measures of cover and abundance of morphological groups can be obtained more rapidly and simply than measuring individual species Rosentreter et al 2001 p 460 “Given the variable responses of species, the presence and abundance of individual species or morphological groups of species may be better indicators of range condition and soil stability than total crust cover.” Warren and Eldridge, 2001” p 407 in Belnap and Lange, 2001 37 The edits and additions in Version 2.0 are based on the initial field test of these methods in Moab, UT, May 6-9, 2002 This document is a part of the report of the Biological Crust Task Force, West Regional Soil Survey Conference, Telluride, CO, July 8-12, 2002 Guidelines for describing soil surface features Version 2.0 6-26-02 J Belnap, A J Tugel, J E Herrick Soil surface features include 1) physical, biological and chemical crusts and structural aggregates that affect the resistance of the soil surface to erosion and 2) rocks, woody debris, litter, and plant bases that intercept raindrops or slow runoff Record total coverage of each surface feature (Surface Features table), surface roughness (needs to be developed), and (optional) distribution of surface features in relation to plant canopy Surface features a Biological Crust (also called microbiotic, microphytic or cryptogamic crust): a thin, biologically dominated surface layer comprised most commonly of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), green and brown algae, mosses, liverworts and/or lichens (NRCS, 1997, Belnap, 2001) – identify biological crust components based on broad morphological groups (cyanobacteria, lichen and moss) Groups consist of organisms that are similar in shape and appearance Note: Biological crusts often establish on top of a physical crust Guidelines for describing such combination crusts have not been proposed, but need to be discussed b Physical and chemical crusts – identify type of crust (not yet developed for rangelands) c Plant bases – identify plant bases by species or plant functional group (perennial grass, shrub, tree, etc.) d Rock and litter – identify bedrock inclusions, rock fragments by size class, woody debris and litter on the soil surface e Structural aggregates – identify other surface features including structural aggregates or bare soil Surface features 38 Appendix Photos For these committee reports the photos were left out due to Mb size of file Lichens and mosses on gypsiferous soil Smooth dark cyanobacterial crust Pinnacled cyanobacteria and lichen crust Pinyon and juniper landscape with pinnacled biological soil crust and rock outcrop (whitecolored slick rock) Mehod Line-point quadrat Quadrat frame (25cm square, 20-hit frame) Method Stratified line-point intercept Soil surface stability test kit Biological Soil Crust Task Force, May 6-9, 2002, Moab Utah 39 ... Technology Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey? ??………………………… Conference Committee on Research Needs Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey? ??………………………… 11 Standing Committee for Standards Western Regional. . .Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Committee Reports CONTENTS Meeting Agenda………………………………………………………… Western Regional Cooperative Soil Survey? ??………………………… Standing Committee on... August Prepare committee report So Done 17 Western? ?Regional? ?Cooperative? ?Soil? ?Survey Conference? ?Committee? ?on Partnering Opportunities Report to the? ?Western? ?Regional? ?Cooperative? ?Soil? ?Survey? ?Conference